click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CSPAN2 5
MSNBCW 5
FBC 3
CNNW 2
CNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
forward in civilian court, the obama administration treated the efforts of certain vocal republicans to troll the president into engaging in a lawless departure from established process and precedent as exactly that, as trolling on and a half of a ridiculous and illegal proposition. >> he will not be treated as an enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist under u.s. law. united states citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. this is absolutely the right way to go and the appropriate way to go. and when it comes to united states citizens, it is against the law to try them in military commissions. >> and it matters that the white house is treating the idea of holding an american citizen outside of the american legal system as what it is, which is crazy and unacceptable. and it matters that appears to be where americans stand on the issue too. when asked just last week in the midst of the aftermath of the boston bombing, with the images and videos of the horror there, the top of everyone's mind, which worries you more, the government will not go far enough to investigat
has only just begun, and the decision by the obama administration, not to designate him as an enemy combatant is upsetting several republicans. >> i have been informed that the obama administration has indicated this suspect in boston will not be treated as enemy combatant. i strongly disagree with the obama administration's decision to rule out enemy combatant status for this suspect at this time. >> let's bring in our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin, joining us from new york. can or should a u.s. citizen be formally given this enemy combatant status? what does the law say? >> every terrorist suspect arrested in the united states, since the first world trade center bombing in 1993 has been treated in the criminal justice system, not as an enemy combatant. standard operating procedure. frankly, the whole status of enemy combatant remains ambiguous in the legal system. the prisoners in guantanamo bay remain in legal limbo. by treating them as criminal suspects, the obama administration is avoiding all kinds of risks and simply acting as the bush administration has in the past and
. what happened if h si inside the obama administration about whether to to the fact he was working for the cia and how to get them out. what happened was initially the obama administration didn't have the pakistanis he was working for the cia. they said he was diplomat. president obama said he's a diplomat. it was only after weeks and weeks as the situation spiraled out of control increasingly, where one of the wives swallowed rat poison because she became a new martyr and was convinced raymond davis to be treated well. ultimately the obama administration went to the pakistani government and sabrina davis is with the cia. there's got to amount of the country. in march of 2011, he was ultimately released from prison after what was blood money was paid, where the guns that the families were paid over $2 million in a massive swipe away his charges and he was released to the united states and sent to an. the entire episode was a microcosm of how fraught u.s. tech any relations have become. >> what kind of work was he doing for the cia impact of and? >> he was doing a number of differen
believe it >>> is it possible to save too much money for your retirement? obama administration thinks so. the president's budget proposal would automatically enroll woers in retirement accounts, that's good. but then set a limit, set a limit on how much that you can save. the proposal says $3 million is enough. because "some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in their accounts. substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings." should the government decide how much money you're allowed to save for retirement? joining me now, "wall street journal" senior economic writer steve moore. and steve, you know, i don't have a life so i was reading the president's budget proposal. and there it was on page 18. he wants to cap the amount that we can save for retirement. i can't believe it. >> you know, tom, the budget proposal that came out by the president had, at you know, hundreds and hundreds of new proposals for funding this program and that program. you know, thousands of activities that are going to get certain levels of fundin
nation. go like a pro. >>> is it possible to save too much money for your retirement? obama administration thinks so. the president's budget proposal would automatically enroll workers in retirement accounts, that's good. but then set a limit, set a limit on how much that you can save. the proposal says $3 million is enough. because "some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in their accounts. substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings." should the government decide how much money you're allowed to save for retirement? joining me now, "wall street journal" senior economic writer steve moore. and steve, you know, i don't have a life so i was reading the president's budget proposal. and there it was on page 18. he wants to cap the amount that we can save for retirement. i can't believe it. >> you know, tom, the budget proposal that came out by the president had, at you know, hundreds and hundreds of new proposals for funding this program and that program. you know, thousands of activities that are going to g
subcommittee held a hearing tuesday on the constitutionality of the obama administration, using drugs to target terror suspects overseas. this has included u.s. military officials, constitutional law professors and again the activist whose villages had by a stream to strike causing civilian tragedies. [inaudible conversations] >> return of the subcommittee on the civil rights and human rights will come to order. today's hearing is entitled drone wars, the counterterrorism institutions of killing. senator cruises on its way from another hearing. there are conflicting schedules we face here. this is the first-ever public hearing in the senate to address the use of drones and targeted killing. we are pleased to have such a large audience for today's hearing that demonstrates the importance and timeliness of this issue. thank you to those hearing person, those watching live on c-span and is following a hearing on twitter and facebook you stand the hash type drone wars. the rules of the semiprivate outbursts, popular demonstrations of any kind. please be mindful of the service as we conduct this hea
lunch -- excuse me, dinner with his teenage cousins and the obama administration has never explained why this kid was killed. he was the son of aulaqi, but his dad had been killed two weeks earlier. this tells the stories of war lords who do the operations for u.s. and al qaeda militants and yemen and elsewhere. and really at the heart of it is the fact that one of obama's enduring legacies when it comes to foreign policy, he has solidified assassination as an essential component of policy. >> they can do it in the shadows, as you pointed out. in the book, i would say there hasn't been a lot of public resistance aside from people like you and others in the press. how have they done this without facing much resistance? publicly or inside the government from people who should be stepping up and saying, wait a minute, we can't kill u.s. citizens without due process? >> right, i think there's no question that if john mccain had won the election in 2008 or mitt romney had won it in 2012 that liberals would be screaming about this stuff and saying, you know, that -- there would be this thing,
their rights being read, then law enforcement may be able to do so. and when the obama administration announced it was going to use the public safety exception we said, well, you might be able to do that but recognize that it is limited and narrow. and, so now, i think that might have been invobed. we don't know. that is one of the things that we don't actually currently know now. how this has proceeded. and i think what's important here is not the defendant has counsel and has gone before a judge and so we look to the system to work, which means we expect prosecutors to proceed fairly and prove their case and defense lawyers to zealously perform their duty and we'll look to see what facts they find and what arguments they make going forward. >> host: cliff may, how different is the public safety exception that can be invoked in that first phase after a detention of a suspect? how is that different than looking at military or enemy combatant status? >> guest: the main difference would be as hina has correctly said the public safety exception is very narrow and limited in time. it is not exactly
both the bush and the obama administrations have done remarkable work in preventing many more of these things. and when they do happen, we have to come together as a country and support each other. this should not be politicized. i would be disappointed if we ended up trying to politicize this, trying to make some point about immigration or gun control or -- or republican/democrat. we all were hurt as a nation. we should all heal together as a nation. >> i want to thank all our panel who have been working with us really all throughout this week but also especially these last 23, 24 hours. it really was 24 hours ago, around 10:00 last night when that report of a robbery at a convenience store kicked off what was the final end game in this manhunt that as mayor giuliani said and juliette echoed, it is not over. it is the beginning of a whole new phase. and final notes now. as john king mentioned about the people who should not be forgotten and should be remembered long after the suspects fade into history and we forgot their names as hopefully we will one day. history should not
. the legalization if you're an american and overseas and participating -- >> the obama administration has used this legal argument to justify their drone attacks. it's not unfamiliar to them. >> about a year ago or so, the nypd came under fire for some listening in this -- using surveillance techniques on certain groups. >> in new jersey. >> in new jersey. >> right. >> there was a thing going back and forth between new york, new jersey, whether they were allowed to do this or not. with all this going on, aren't we making the case for more of that rather than less of that? >> yeah, we have to do more of it. it's very uncomfortable. it's very -- none of us want to give up any of our privacy, understandable. the reality is this is how you stop them. this is the only way you have to stop them. that is getting the information in advance. they're doing everything they can to hide what they're doing. law enforcement, intelligence agencies, they have to be able to do everything they can to intrude into them to find out what they're doing. >> mayor, as far as i can tell, we knew about nidal malik hasan
the thistle and the drone and to lay out the use of loans by the obama administration. it is recorded at american university in washington, d.c. is part of book tv college series. it's about half an hour to the >> booktv is on location at american university in washington, d.c.. we are pleased to be joined here by professor akbar ahmed at american university to give his most recent book is the vessel and the drone how america's war on taricani global terror on islam. dr. ahmed come visit a clash of civilizations or class of religion? >> i would say it is more complex. i find these concepts rather simplistic and by now more than ten years after 9/11, we should be aware of the complexity of what is happening on the ground a lot where america is involved in the various wars to it i find in this particular study that many of these conflicts are rooted in the clash already taking place before 9/11 between central governments and the tribes and communities on the periphery between states so therefore without an understanding of the culture and the history it is impossible to impose the simp
as opposed to within the criminal justice system, which seems to be what the obama administration will do. after all, he is a u.s. citizen. he carried out the crime on u.s. soil. and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of legal basis to try him as enemy combatant, which is not to say there aren't going to be more calls particularly from the right to do just that. >> when in theory you have so much evidence on american soil, why tarnish the prosecution by going enemy combatant. if you have no backlash from anybody who says you didn't do it the right way. >> he stole a suspect. but clearly -- you've got to walk through the process, right? >> i was thinking this weekend, again, and i'm speculating, you read the articles. we know now he ran after his own brother. you know what the defense is going to be. i was brainwashed by my brother. i ran over him to get away. >> the older brother, basically was even asked to leave his own mosque because his anti-american views were so strong that the islamic community in cambridge was outraged. >> if they saw this happen, raise this question and raise h
of the president's aid referred to the boston attack as terrorism before he did. a senior administration official privately called it an act of terror shortly --er mr. obama smoke on spoke on monday. chuck hagel had no doubts. >> any event with multiple explosive devices as this appears to be is clearly an act of terror and will be approached as an act of terror. >> meanwhile, house speaker john boehner says calling it terrorism doesn't really explain it? >> we can describe it a lot of different ways, but it was a terrorist attack of some sort. now, again, until we know who or why, i don't think we can further define it. >> president obama will go to boston on thursday to attend an interfaith service for victims of monday's attack. no word yet on whether he will speak at the gathering. bret? >> bret: wendell goler live on the north lawn. thank you. who do you think will eventually be found to have been behind these bombings? let me know on twitter. follow me at bret baier. still ahead, we will go live to a boston hospital to get an update on the injured there. when we return, almost everyone want
of president bush and his anti-terror policies. in the days and years since the first strikes, president obama is estimated to have ordered five times as many drone strikes as the bush administration. and although the strikes have been credited with decimating al qaeda, they've also been executed entirely in secret and without judicial oversite. a policy that differs significantly with what the president has told the american people. >> i am not somebody who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants or whatever she wants whenever they want, just under the guise of counterterrorism. >> today's hearings will address proposals to increase their transparency. for a president who voted against the wars in iraq and won the nobel peace prize, his policy on drones have come as a surprise to many. the president's hawkishness has not been universal. that was apparent this week when the president ignored calls from gop hawks to hold a suspect of the boston bombings, dzhokhar tsarnaev, as an enemy combatant and said, dzhokhar, an american citizen. will be given full rights and
the advisory he was taught by the wars outside the war zone. early on the obama administration. and he said in contrast to the wars in iraq and afghanistan where the united states has used a hammer, he said we, the obama administration, can use a scalpel. it was an idea i had that scalpel certainly applied a sos free. surgery without obligations. but we see that's not the case in a lot of places. so i thought i would take his analogy and make it a nice because nice fights are a lot messier. >> host: steve, california, you're on with mark mazzetti from "the new york times." >> caller: this. the united states has not declared war in over 70 years. the wars we thought, korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan have all been basically unconstitutional. we seem to have given up any a semblance of pretending to declare war, congress seems to have no stomach to declaring war but obviously no problem fighting them. i'm wondering whether or not you think that the militarization of the cia, potential conflict between the different agencies and the defense department might in fact said whether that we return
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)